How do private schools do it?

[Anotherday24]

Had a quick catch up with DD’s teacher a couple of days ago. DD’s always had good grades and been towards the top of her class since she started in reception, but recently has seemed quite down about school work.

Teacher told me that there had been an influx of “very clever” kids this year (the local private school closed and 7 DC joined the year). And it’s been a real shock to DD not having it all her own way and she has struggled to keep up with them, especially in English. It was almost as if he was crowing that DD is being out performed.

I’m trying to make sense of this. The school that closed down wasn’t selective. I find it strange that all 7 are SO much cleverer than the 20 odd state school kids. Is it just that they’ve already covered the syllabus, or they’ve been taught better? Perhaps their lockdown offering was better? Will it level off?

Also the teacher has taught this class for 2 years so shouldn’t he be concerned that all these new kids are doing so much better than the ones who have been taught at his school all the way through?

Just not sure what to make of it. Will DD (year 5) ever catch up? How do private schools do it?

A lot more homework than state primaries. Better teaching g during Covid. And weirdly from experience a lot of privately educated kids get tutoring too.

I think you’re right. Dd went from a state primary in a deprived area to a selective girls school in year 7. She’d never done homework before and it was a shock - they worked them soo hard. She did well (8s and 9s at GCSE) but the exam years were unnecessarily exhausting and stressful I think. She moved to a boys grammar (mixed at sixth form) and had a way more relaxed two years, where she could really enjoy being young and having fun. She came out with an A star and 2 As. She said she might have got three A stars at her old school but she’d have been so stressed. Her uni destination would have been the same.

I’m really glad dd had a relaxed childhood at primary school with no pressure. People often say they have to be prepared for real life and hard work but I don’t think this has to start at 4!

I hate the phrase “spoon fed”. It’s so sneery.

I don't understand what it means. Do they mean 'teaching? Are all state students just flailing in the void?

OP, my ds went to state primary and now independent senior. It took him two years to catch up.

The differences were much higher expectations, smaller classes so each child gets more individual attention, and a class full of children whose parents proactively support and encourage them, plus an hour's supervised prep every evening.

Even if it was none selective it’s selective in terms of parents who can afford frees. Parents who can afford fees often have done well academically eg drs and academic parents tend to have academic children.
They cover more ground - smaller classes, less disruption. More emphasis on academics not dress up days.
The English could be down to encouraging wider reading for 11 plus or private secondary school entrance prep. Classics are encouraged as good for vocabulary, verbal reasoning etc.
I’d be looking at ways to support her so she’s not discouraged. Long term it sounds like they will be a good addition to the class.

Must admit I googled it - it said “provide someone with so much help or information that they do not need to think for themselves”. I don’t think independent schools do this. If they did, they would be completely useless at things like debating.

Well,quite - or able to answer an a level q that they'd never seen before

It’s a weird one, it really is. ‘Spoon fed’ is a disparaging way to describe a child being given the support to reach their potential. I’ve seen people say on here (to paraphrase) ‘they’re not clever, they’re just spoon fed which they wouldn’t be in state school. They’d be average there’, as if that’s not in fact an indictment of the state schools they’re looking to claim as superior.

Many state schools left it up to fill the learning gaps after covid. Majority of private schools stepped up, parents could afford tutors to plug any learning holes & like state parents I'd imagine private parents also did plenty of extension work at home.

Private schools generally do lots of field trips that state schools just don't do.

Lots more afterschool clubs & music. More well rounded education.

"Spoon-fed" is a ridiculous thing to say

Strong foundations with core principles very firmly embedded. Therefore when they come to prepare for exams, much of the content is at their fingertips and students can focus the more difficult content or higher order thinking questions which will enable them to access the higher grades.
Obviously that isn't all children in all settings but it is a significant factor. For example if children have been thoroughly prepared for learning times tables and simply know them inside out they can use this knowledge to handle more difficult maths like fractions as they can do the table sums that facilitate in their heads and without thinking. Others who are less well prepared may be trying to do the fraction sums whilst still counting on their fingers. This could be applied to lots of areas.

In terms of the question, it's worth remembering that there are good and bad schools in the independent and state sectors. However, hallmarks of a good private school could include small class sizes, more staff, broader curriculum with specialist teachers and facilities and a greater emphasis on consolidating via homework. Also, for many parents, the cost of school fees feels significant and willingness to pay indicates a self-selecting cohort of parents to whom education matters and where they are prepared to be very supportive.

All of this feeds in to a positive cycle of effort and culture of learning. Obviously there are lots of generalisations here and interested parents, with time for their children who read and engage with them are always the biggest winner for a child I think.

People who claim that the children are “spoon-fed” also seem to overlook the fact that these children do actually have to sit the same exams as state pupils, and don’t have someone next to them telling them the answers. They do have to be able to answer questions for themselves.

Some people think that having a calm classroom with engaging teachers who aren’t spending half the lesson on behaviour management, with staff stretching the children and recognising their potential and strengths, means the children are “spoon-fed”. I’d describe it as a providing a decent education (which should obviously be the aim in the state sector too).

My DS went to a private, selective high school. The exam was really hard. But the high school and the junior school had smaller classes, longer days, more supervision including homework and alot of focus. They sped through the work.

Your DD will catch up. Or things will even out.

@Wisenotboring

Strong foundations with core principles very firmly embedded. Therefore when they come to prepare for exams, much of the content is at their fingertips and students can focus the more difficult content or higher order thinking questions which will enable them to access the higher grades. Obviously that isn't all children in all settings but it is a significant factor. For example if children have been thoroughly prepared for learning times tables and simply know them inside out they can use this knowledge to handle more difficult maths like fractions as they can do the table sums that facilitate in their heads and without thinking. Others who are less well prepared may be trying to do the fraction sums whilst still counting on their fingers. This could be applied to lots of areas.

Nail on the head there. It makes no sense to expect pupils to cope with more complex concepts when they've not mastered the core fundamental basics. Kids are being set up to fail unfortunately with all the soft-touch slow teaching in a lot of primaries and then struggle at the leap to secondary.

I used to think this & was disparaging about the lack of stretch & ‘dress up’ ‘soft touch’ approach in our Primary.

BUT if the staff are happy in themselves & school a great workplace with listening management THIS counts for so much too.

Overall the school was such a happy & positive place the kids skipped in. I’ve noticed it’s fostered a culture of self-learning & self-starting in secondary.

Just listened to a Thinking Allowed (Radio 4) podcast talking about some research on Elite Universities and Working Class Students. One quote of a research subject, a privately-educated young man whose parents were bankers, talking about the lead up to attending one of the UKs elite universities...

"I never thought that I would not come here. I've been privately educated and I know what's expected of me. There is a certain standard that is the norm and not the exception. The whole school system is set up to lead me to this university - interview preparation, classes to get you to say the right thing in the interview, the whole shebang.".

He just takes it for granted that this is where his life is leading, and his school actively worked to push him along that track. That's what private schools (and their parents) do. They make it easy for them to succeed in this way - like they are destined to go to these universities and have these opportunities, like they are entitled to this.

Interesting, there are casualties of the above 'system' too that we tend not to hear about too much...but I think this is broadly, right.

I've noticed that intellectual stretch around the pathway to Uni isn't encouraged either. By that, I mean 'keep it simple, do what is required for the next step'. So if they child has lived in France for a stretch, is fluent, and French A level, therefore, 'easy' - do it. Don't opt for Spanish for the stretch etc.

I was talking to a particularly 'polished' parent who was talking about friends' kids doing the IB not As and therefore working socks off currently, and she said, 'why on earth make it it complicated or difficult for yourself? Do what is 'easy'!

To add re: 'keeping it easy'' that means, as the sort of parents above increasingly look to the Iy League, can make sure that the kids focus on spots and extras, a couple of softer subjects and a language you are already almost or sometimes, even, a native speaker, and BINGO...

Interesting that Westminster has about 8 Harvard offers currently, apparently.

It's a self-perpetuating system too... competitive, high-achieving parents bring up competitive, high-achieving children... and so it goes on.

I work in a school (not in the UK) which is considered academically elite though it's only partially private. It's very clear to see the drive, pressure, competitive edge of the wealthier parents pushing their children towards a certain 'approved' path: they are only 'allowed' to study certain subjects (maths, science, medicine, political administration, law) and only at certain approved institutions. If the school is unable to provide a certain service, then the parents will pay for it. By following this approved path to certain careers, it does keep things simple.

So different to DH and I - both university-educated but from working class / lower-middle backgrounds. DH's parents knew nothing about uni, he was expected to leave school at 15 and start working, which he did. He went back to uni as a mature student, and has had imposter syndrome ever since. My parents OTOH encouraged me to go but they really couldn't give me any advice / support beyond that - they didn't have 'contacts', we didn't have any role models in the family of what careers people did after uni. They just didn't know - and they couldn't teach me. So for both of us, our parents expectations about 'success', and what it looked like, were low, for different reasons.

I agree with this to a certain extent.. However many parents "in the know" won't let us plebs know all the extras & extension work they are doing with their dc & play it all down..

Interesting, I saw that it wasn't necessarily the 'bad thing' I thought it was, to dictate the career path/higher quals your child was destined for. It gives an aim and a focus. One of mine simply didn't know, at all, at 16-18 and attended talks for those who 'didn't know' only to to end up very confused and unmotivated at that time.

One softer (she says) 'tiger mother' I know, does keep it very simple with GCSE and A'levels and prior saying to kids 'I have a job and currently your job is to be a student, I expect you to execute it very well'. Simple.

I think all of these are repeats or others comments however from watching our girls education compared to 2 friends state schools I would say differences are:

• Longer days and focused learning.
• Homework from early years and throughout prep
• Focused learning, children are well behaved so no behaviour disruptions
• Individual support, if children struggle in a topic support is provided
• Subjects taught by specialist teachers
• lots of assemblies with children presenting
• greater freedom of the curriculum

It tends to even out at uni, as long as your state school child can get to a very good one.

I suppose I just hoped education was a marathon not a sprint so getting somewhere ahead didnt matter as long as the others got there. But it looks like the reality is more like a sprint to the right uni.